Introduction

In 2025, the United States (US)-Türkiye relationship moved beyond the traditional logic of NATO Alliance cohesion and entered a phase of strategic bargaining. Once anchored almost exclusively in NATO solidarity and Cold War–era security imperatives, bilateral ties between the nations are now being increasingly shaped by two defining and interconnected issues: Türkiye’s calibrated position on the war in Ukraine and its growing relevance in the geopolitics of rare earth elements and critical minerals.¹ These dynamics reflect a broader transformation of the international system and intra-alliance dynamics in which great power competition, fragmented supply chains, and regional autonomy are increasingly overriding ideological alignment.  

For Washington, Türkiye remains indispensable but unreliable; for Ankara, the US is a necessary but constraining partner. The challenge for both sides is how to construct a functional partnership that accommodates a divergence of alignment while still delivering strategic value. Rare earth elements and Türkiye’s role in Ukraine offer precisely such a framework: material, interest-based, and adaptable to a world defined by competition with Russia and China. 

Türkiye, Ukraine, and the Logic of Strategic AutonomyÌı

Türkiye’s response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has crystallized its broader foreign policy doctrine. Ankara condemned the invasion, supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity, supplied Kyiv with military equipment, and closed the Turkish Straits to military traffic under the Montreux Convention. At the same time, it refused to impose sanctions on Russia and preserved energy, trade, and diplomatic ties with Moscow. 

This approach is often described in Washington as “â€� but from Ankara’s perspective, it is a rational expression of strategic autonomy.&²Ô²ú²õ±è;°Õü°ù°ì¾±²â±ğ&²Ô²ú²õ±è;views the war not only as a European security crisis but also a  with direct implications for its own stability, energy security, and economic resilience. Full alignment with Western sanctions would expose Türkiye to severe economic costs, exacerbate inflation, and jeopardize energy supplies, while full alignment with Russia would undermine its role in NATO. 

Türkiye’s early mediation efforts following the invasion of Ukraine have reinforced its self-image as an indispensable intermediary between Russia and the West. Unlike most NATO Allies, Ankara retains the ability to communicate credibly with both sides. For the US, this role is double-edged: it dilutes Alliance discipline but preserves a diplomatic channel with Russia that would otherwise not exist. 

US Expectations and Limits of Alliance DisciplineÌı

Throughout the second Trump presidency, the US has viewed the war in Ukraine less as a fundamental test of the rules-based international order and more as a measure of Allied burden-sharing and loyalty to US interests. Washington’s discard of normative alignment and expectations of tangible demonstrations of support carries deep implications for Türkiye that benefits substantially from NATO security guarantees. In this context, Ankara’s refusal to impose sanctions on Russia and its continued economic engagement with Moscow are not seen as violations of shared principles, but rather as opportunistic behaviour that undermines NATO cohesion and reinforces perceptions of Allies â€˜freeloading’ off US protection. 

Yet, these expectations reflect an older model of Alliance behaviour that is increasingly difficult to sustain. In a multipolar system, medium powers like Türkiye are less willing to subordinate their interests to bloc politics. Ankara’s behaviour in Ukraine is not an anomaly but a signal of how smaller and middle powers navigate systemic competition: hedging, mediating, and extracting leverage from multiple relationships simultaneously. 

This suggests that pressuring the Turkish government into full alignment may be counterproductive. Excessive coercion risks accelerating Ankara’s drift toward alternative partnerships, while reducing US influence over Turkish strategic choices. The challenge for Washington, therefore, is not to put an end to Turkish autonomy, but to channel it toward outcomes compatible with US interests. 

Rare EarthÌıElementsÌıand the New Geopolitics of Supply ChainsÌı

In October 2025, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that Türkiye had identified the world’s second largest reserve of rare earth elements, containing an estimated 694 million tons of mineral resources in Beylikova, located in northwestern Türkiye. The discovery includes .&²Ô²ú²õ±è;°Õü°ù°ì¾±²â±ğ&²Ô²ú²õ±è; developing rare-earth reserves in western Anatolia with the US after similar talks with China and Russia were halted amid disagreements over control; it is also engaging with  on potential cooperation. Türkiye plans on building a refinery in Beylikova, which contains ore with more than 1% rare-earth oxide by weight.  In addition, Ankara plans to apply to the Australian Institute of Geoscientists for certification under the JORC Code, which sets minimum standards for how companies publicly report exploration results and would reveal the size of deposits for potential investors. 

Ankara’s talks with Western partners come as the US and the European Union (EU) step up efforts to reduce China’s dominance in the production and processing of rare earth elements. The Turkish government has sought to balance its ties with both the West and China amid growing global trade tensions. In September 2025, Türkiye joined a  led by the US and EU aimed at diversifying critical mineral supply chains; however, it has also been offered partner-country status to the BRICS group of emerging-market powers and attracted Chinese investment in electric vehicle production. In 2026, the EU  a new agreement with US and Japan to cooperate on critical raw materials supply chains.  

It is within this context that rare earth elements and critical minerals acquire strategic significance. The global competition over rare earth elements has become a central front in US-China geopolitical rivalry. China’s dominant position across extraction, processing, and downstream manufacturing of these elements represents a structural vulnerability for the US and its partners. For Ankara, cooperation supports its goal of moving up the global value chain, reducing reliance on external suppliers, and strengthening its role in strategic industries, such as defense systems, medical technologies, and consumer electronics. For Washington, Türkiye represents a politically and geographically viable partner in efforts to diversify supply chains for key technological and defence products while reducing dependence on China without concentrating production in a limited number of partner countries. 

Diversifying supply chains is therefore a national security imperative and Türkiye is increasingly relevant for three reasons: firstly, it possesses geological potential for rare earth elements and other strategic minerals; second, it has a substantial industrial base capable of supporting processing and manufacturing; and third, its geographic position makes it a hub connecting Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. 

Linking Rare EarthÌıElementsÌıand Ukraine: Strategic ComplementarityÌı

The intersection between cooperation on rare earth elements and Türkiye’s position on Ukraine is not coincidental. Both issues raise the same underlying question: how much strategic autonomy can Türkiye exercise while remaining embedded in the Western alliance structure?  

Economic interdependence in critical sectors creates incentives for alignment that political pressure alone cannot achieve. A structured US-Türkiye partnership on rare earth exploration, processing, and technology transfer would deepen mutual dependence, making a sharp geopolitical rupture less likely. Such cooperation would strengthen Türkiye’s stake in a Western-oriented economic order, indirectly shaping its calculations on Ukraine. While it would not compel Ankara to adopt sanctions or abandon mediation, it would raise costs of drifting too far from US strategic priorities. This logic is visible in US efforts to structure critical mineral partnerships with Ukraine, suggesting that resource cooperation is emerging as a broader instrument of strategic alignment rather than a case-specific initiative. 

Russia, China, andÌıTürkiye’s Hedging StrategyÌı

Türkiye’s approach to rare earths must also be understood in the context of its broader hedging strategy vis-à-vis Russia and China. Moscow remains a key energy supplier and a critical actor in the Black Sea, while Beijing is an increasingly important trade and investment partner for Türkiye. 

China’s dominance in the rare earth industry presents Ankara with both an opportunity and a constraint. On the one hand, Chinese investment and technology are an attractive prospect for developing Türkiye’s mineral sector. On the other, excessive reliance on China would undermine Türkiye’s aspiration for strategic autonomy and expose it to geopolitical pressure from its Western partners A US-Türkiye partnership on rare earth elements offers Ankara an alternative path â€“ one that diversifies external dependencies. For Washington, engaging with Türkiye reduces the likelihood that Ankara will default to China. 

Türkiye’s value extends well beyond economics. Its control of access to the Black Sea, close proximity to Ukraine, Russia, and the Middle East, and strong military capabilities make it a cornerstone of NATO’s southern and eastern flanks. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reinforced the strategic importance of the Black Sea as a contested space where naval power, energy routes, and regional stability intersect. Türkiye’s enforcement of the Montreux Convention has limited Russian naval reinforcement and demonstrated Ankara’s capacity to shape the operational environment without direct military confrontation. This contribution, though often overlooked, has tangible value for Ukraine, the US and other NATO Allies. Maintaining Türkiye’s integration within NATO is therefore essential, even as undercurrents persist. Cooperation on rare earth elements complements this objective by reinforcing Türkiye’s embeddedness in the Western order. 

Scenarios for the Evolution of US-Türkiye RelationsÌı

Several trajectories could shape US-Türkiye relations in the coming years. 

Scenario 1: Strategic Convergence Through Economic Anchoring 

In this scenario, the US and Türkiye deepen cooperation on rare earth elements and other critical minerals, integrating cooperation with broader collaboration in defense technologies, energy transition, and industrial policy. Deepening economic interdependence would help stabilize the bilateral relationship and provide a practical framework for managing political differences. Türkiye would continue to act as a semi-autonomous NATO Ally â€“ aligned with the US on core security interests, while retaining flexibility in its diplomatic engagement with other powers and partners. 

Scenario 2: Strategic Drift and Competitive Hedging 

If cooperation on rare earth elements fails to materialize and political tensions over Ukraine intensify, Türkiye may deepen its ties with Russia and China. In this scenario, Ankara’s mediation role loses value for Washington, and the relationship becomes increasingly transactional and distrustful. NATO cohesion weakens, and supply chain cooperation shifts elsewhere. 

Scenario 3: Managed Autonomy and Functional Partnership 

In the most realistic scenario, the US accepts Türkiye’s strategic autonomy while selectively deepening cooperation in areas of high mutual value, particularly rare earth elements and Black Sea security.&²Ô²ú²õ±è;°Õü°ù°ì¾±²â±ğ&²Ô²ú²õ±è;continues to mediate Ukraine, and Washington leverages this role pragmatically, even as political differences persist. 

Policy Options for the United States 

US policy toward Türkiye should place cooperation on rare earth elements and critical minerals at the centre of the bilateral agenda, elevating it to a strategic pillar within broader efforts to reduce supply chain dependence on China. This would require the adoption of concrete measures, including investment, technology sharing, and regulatory coordination. At the same time, Washington should continue to reassess Türkiye’s approach to Ukraine by focusing more on practical outcomes, recognizing that Ankara’s efforts and selective support for Kyiv can contribute to regional stability in ways that rigid conformity may not. Strengthening high-level institutional dialogue that links security, economic, and industrial policy would help reduce misunderstandings and prevent tensions from overshadowing the broader relationship. Finally, the US should reaffirm Türkiye’s central role within NATO while accepting that member country cohesion in a multipolar environment will inevitably involve tension and diversity in policies and approaches,  

Conclusion: From Alignment to Strategic InterdependenceÌı

The US-Türkiye relationship in 2025 highlights how NATO may increasingly be shaped by pragmatism and negotiated interests, alongside â€“ but not replaced by â€“ shared values and ideological affinity. In this context, values remain relevant but may no longer be sufficient on their own to sustain strategic partnerships. Instead, cooperation is structured through selective interdependence across security, economic, and technological domains. Türkiye’s calibrated approach to Ukraine and its growing role in rare earth elements and critical mineral supply chains should therefore be seen as interdependent strategies, offering broader theoretical insights regarding contemporary alliance patterns. 

For the US, this shift may require a recalibration of expectations. The ultimate choice is not between accepting Turkish autonomy or attempting to impose alliance discipline, but between shaping that autonomy through sustained engagement or allowing it to evolve in ways increasingly misaligned with US interests. Treating Türkiye’s behaviour as a problem of non-compliance risks overlooking the structural forces driving Ankara’s decisions. A strategy centred on pressure alone is unlikely to succeed and may intensify Türkiye’s temptations to turn toward alternative partnerships. Instead, over time, deepening interdependence could play a stabilizing role, mitigate political disputes and increase the costs of strategic divergence on both sides. 

Ultimately, in an era defined by multipolar competition and systemic rivalry, resilience will depend more on flexible, interest-based cooperation. The combination of cooperation on rare earth elements and pragmatic engagement on Ukraine offers a framework through which the US and NATO can adapt their approach to Türkiye without relinquishing core strategic objectives. By prioritizing realism, mutual benefit, and long-term interdependence, Washington can help ensure that Türkiye remains a pivotal â€” if unconventional â€” partner, capable of contributing to Western security and economic resilience in an increasingly fragmented world. 

The post Rare Earth Elements, Ukraine, and Strategic Autonomy: Reframing US-Türkiye Relations appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

Key Findings

Key Takeaways 

• NATO and Western partners are widely viewed as desirable securityÌıpartnersÌıin Armenia, Estonia, Georgia, and Latvia, with the strongest support in the Baltic states and Georgia.ÌıPerceptionsÌıof NATO’s security impact are highly positive in Estonia and Latvia, andÌımost citizens support continued NATO membership. However, about one-third in each country expect toÌıreceive no externalÌıassistanceÌıor aid in theÌıfaceÌıof a securityÌıcrisis.Ìı

• In the South Caucasus, favourable views of NATO do not translate into expectations of crisis support. FewÌıidentifyÌıNATO as the main crisis responder, while self-reliance is the dominant view. In Armenia, public opinion is evenly split on alignment, with equal support for closer ties to NATO and Russia.Ìı

• Considering this,ÌıNATO should increase regular and visible reassurance in regions where it is the main defense guarantor, especially in the Baltic states, and address the concerns of those who expect toÌıbe self-reliantÌıduring crises. In the South Caucasus, NATO should manage public expectations and focus on building resilience and preparedness, given limited direct security options.Ìı

To read the full policy memo, download a PDF copy with the button below.

The post Addressing the NATO Credibility Gap in the Baltics and the South Caucasus: What are the Limits of the Alliance’s Engagement? appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

The South Caucasus region has historically been regarded as one of the most complex regions in the world, where geopolitical rivalries, ethnic disputes, and energy security risks collide. One of the longest-lasting conflicts in the region is the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh.

This paper aims to study the Washington Peace Declaration between Armenia and Azerbaijan and its potential impact on security and economic integration in the South Caucasus region. TRIPP and related transport initiatives could enable Armenia and Azerbaijan to serve as critical components of a strategic transit corridor linking Europe and Asia. US and EU engagement is highlighted as essential for maintaining stability and attracting investment in the region.

The post The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Geopolitical Significance of the Washington Peace Declaration for the South Caucasus appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

On September 11th, Poland made headlines in its decision to close its border with Belarus over the Russian Zapad 2025 drills. The nuclear and missile drills, combined with the detection of Russian drones in Polish airspace, kept the border closed for almost two weeks, halting the critical Northern Corridor trade route between the EU and China, which had previously brought in 25 billion euros in 2024. The closure emphasizes the increasing insecurity surrounding trade since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Regional conflicts, along with logistical issues, including outdated infrastructure and corridor congestion, have amplified the need to protect or develop trade routes between China and Europe. China, as the largest exporter in the world, has been especially proactive in this space; however, looking at different trade route alternatives opens a new set of security and economic questions. This brief considers the role of the Northern Corridor as a critical point in the Chinese-European relationship, emerging alternatives, and the political implications if such alternatives are sought out by the partners.

The Northern Corridor

The border closure affected a critical point of the China-Europe Railway Express, a vital trade route for goods coming into Europe. , affecting major e-commerce companies such as Temu and Shein, who rely on smooth and rapid transitways for high-speed shipping of goods. The railway is a key part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, as well as the Northern Corridor trading route. , where they then change to a European rail gauge before continuing on with their journey.

The Northern Corridor, running through Russian and Belarusian territory, has been the primary route to export goods intercontinentally, as it remains a strong alternative to lengthy and expensive land and sea routes. However, Russian aggression and expansionism have created political, financial, and logistical difficulties. The route itself has become incredibly . Disruptions have affected the global trading economy, food supply chain, and economic health of individual countries. The damage done to the Northern Corridor has motivated China to reconsider its future trade movements and partnerships.

Emerging Alternatives

A popular alternative has been the , which would avoid Russia by going through Central Asia and into Europe via the Black Sea. However, the lack of infrastructure renders this initiative a work-in-progress. Furthermore, ongoing security issues in the Black Sea make merchant ships vulnerable to damage from mines and Russian attacks. Despite previously blocking TITR development, China has through the China Railway Container Transport Corporation. Other Central Asian and Black Sea states have also taken on However, many countries along this route are still susceptible to Russian influence and coercion, which could further stagnate development.

An even more attractive alternative for China and Russia has emerged through the Northern Sea Route (NSR). The NSR travels through the and reaches Europe through British ports. Previously unnavigable, the route is becoming a more viable option, though it also lacks substantial infrastructure. As a direct response to the closure of Poland’s borders, Chinese container line Sea Legend through the NSR on September 24th. This will test the efficacy of the journey, with the ship expected to reach Britain in 18 days. Since the route passes through Russian ports to reach Europe, it is unclear what geopolitical outcomes this will have due to the ongoing war.

What are the Political Implications of These Moves?

The development of both the TITR and NSR reflect changing geopolitical dynamics. Developing routes can be a space for new partnerships and prosperity – or problems. The TITR is a new place for modernization projects, where multiple countries can emerge as key enablers and/or investors. Countries like Türkiye, Romania, and China are all pushing to assert their positions. Shipping through the TITR is partially underway through land, rail, and sea; however, further development will be needed to establish its primacy.

The NSR emphasizes the growing geopolitical competition in the Arctic. Russian and Chinese development along this route will further secure economic interests and therefore influence within the region. For China, connections to the Arctic have critical gains as they pursue an active policy in the region, Russia has strongly supported China’s moves, and partnership in the NSR will deepen their collaboration. In the Northern Corridor, both countries used their partnership to dominate decisions around trade and development. Could the NSR be a new place to replicate this dynamic? This could have implications for the future of norms-setting and governance in the Arctic; however, it should be noted that the NSR has its own logistical handicaps, which could limit its impact.

For the time being, the Northern Corridor remains a major transitway. This means that global trade will continue to be insecure, so long as regional threats remain active. Back in Poland, the government reopened the border on September 24th for security and economic reasons. However,

The post The Future of Trade: Analyzing Critical Routes in the Current Geopolitical Landscape appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.

The Caspian and Black Sea regions hold significant geopolitical importance for Europe’s energy security, due to their strategic location, abundant resources, and critical role as transit corridors linking energy-producing areas with consumer markets. .  The significance of these regions also extends beyond energy and trade, encompassing economic potential and a strategic role in regional stability and broader security dynamics. Given their geopolitical and geostrategic value, ensuring the security of these regions has become a priority for external actors, often from geopolitically opposing sides. The regions’ energy reserves, trade flows, and transportation infrastructure increasingly influence both regional and transregional stability and security frameworks. 

The post The Strategic Importance of the Caspian and Black Sea Regions for Europe’s Energy Security appeared first on Eastern European and Transatlantic Network.